Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIV 1981-09-15 Minutes CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS APPEAL HEARING FOR KENT W. WILLIAMS CASE N0. CS-81-1 SEPTEMBER 15, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The Chairma.n called the hearing for CS-81-1 to order at 7:37 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Members Present: Bill Betts Chairman Ed Szol Vice Chairman Bob Skelton Others Present: Rex McEntire City Attorney Kent Williams Subpoenaed Witnesses The Chairman read off the names of the subpoenaed witnesses and asked them to acknow~edge their presence. The employee, Kent Williams, represented himself, and Rex McEntire, City Attorney, represented the department head, Cecil Forester. The Chairman read the statement on grounds for adverse action by the department head and the written report. He asked the employee if he had been furnished a copy of a11 of the department head statements. Mr. Williams stated that he had been notified in writing. The Chairman explained how the hearing would proceed and asked if either party would like to invoke the rule. Mr. McEntire stated he would like to know who the witnesses would be in advance. He stated that he would be calling Jeanette Moore and John Moody. Mr. Williams stated that he would call Jimmy Cates, Arthur Kutcher, Dale Null, Mike Pack, Cliff Porch, Cecil Forester, Jerry Thomspon and Kathy Dockery. Mr. Williams stated that he was invoking the rule. The Chairman asked the witnesses to stand and he swore them in. The Chairman asked the witnesses to leave the room until called since the rule had been invoked. Mr. McEntire requested that Cecil Forester stay in the room. CSC Hearing ' ' Case No CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 2 ~ Mr. Williams said that first he would like to state that his suspension was not legal as defined by Article XVII, Section 16 of the Charter, notice of appeal was not included. The Chairman questioned why he objected since he had been notified in writing. Mr. McEntire asked if Kent Williams had been sworn in. The Chairman swore Mr. Williams in. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Williams if he had received the documents dated August 14, 1981 and August 21, 1981, and if to his best recollection receive them on August 27, 1981. Mr. Williams answered yes. Mr. McEntire admitted into evidence as Exhibit 4~1 the document referenced PWL-0022-81, a letter to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission reference CS-81-1 from Cecil Forester. Mr. Williams stated that the letter did not state that he had ten days to appeal within and the Charter states it has to be written. Mr. McEntire stated that had not Mr. Williams appealed within ten days, had he not received a copy of the letter then he would have a good motion, but he did appeal and receive a copy of the letter and his presence at this hearing indicates that he was not harmed. Mr. Williams said Mr. McEntire's statements are not in the Charter and the Charter states it has to be written. Chairman Betts read Article XVII, Section 16, line 6, of the Charter to which Mr. Williams was referring and said that had he made reference to the whole paragraph he would be correct, but with reference to one line the meaning is not specific. Mr. McEntire stated that in all rules of law if you can't prove damage you don't have a complaint. Mr. Williams stated he picked up a copy of the specifics on August 27 but was refused a copy of the written statements and therefore was trying to defend himself when he was not fully aware of all of the allegations. CSC Hearing . Case No. CS-81-1 ~ September 15, 1981 Page 3 Chairman Betts stated that the letter was very specific. Mr. McEntire stated that the City and the Department will stand on two letters, both of which Mr. Williams received copies of, one dated August 21 directed to Bill Betts and the original letter of statement directed to Kent Williams. He stated the views are very specific when the letters are coupled together with the specifics to the fact that Mr. Williams was not getting the work production of the department done. Mr. Williams stated that he never made derogatory remarks toward management and that he denied 11.02e. Mr. Williams called as his first witness, Kathy Dockery. Mr. Williams asked Ms. Dockery if she recalled the conversation between him, John Moody, and herself; what it was about; and if he made any derogatory remarks towards management. Ms. Dockery testified that she and Mr. Moody were discussing the proposed pay plan, mostly how it would be based on the merit system, when Kent walked up. She stated that she did not remember Mr. Williams making any derogatory remarks and that his remarks did not offend her personally or as an employee. She testified that in her opinion Mr. Williams did not say anything that would create morale problems or affect the city municipal government, but they could have affected Mr. Moody a different way. Ms. Dockery testified that if s~e had seen a city manager memo regarding being in City Hall she did not remember it. Mr. McEntire asked Ms. Dockery if she was aware that unauthorized personnel were prohibited from being in the administrative section of City Hall after closing. Ms. Dockery testified that her general knowledge was that after the doors were locked no one was suppose to be in City Hall. Mr. McEntire questioned her about the conversation she had with Mr. Moody and Mr. Williams. Ms. Dockery testified that she and Mr. Moody were discussing the merit system when Kent walked up. She stated that Mr. Moody was showing them the way it could be designed and that it looked good on paper. She said that this was when Kent made the statement "Just don't believe it until you see it." She stated that when he made the statement he was referring to the amount of money. CSC Hearing ' Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 4 Mr. McEntire asked Ms. Dockery if she could recall Mr. Williams saying anything to the effect that the City Manager was not treating the employees fairly or could not be expected to. Ms. Dockery stated the only thing she could recall was Mr. Williams' one comment which could be construed any way. She stated that most of Mr. Williams' comments were directed to Mr. Moody and that she did not specifically remember the details. She stated that she had heard other employees speak this way before. Ms. Dockery stated the only other person she could remember being there was Ronnie, a mechanic, who was sitting nearby doing paper work. Mr. Williams asked Ms. Dockery if she had ever heard him make derogatory remarks toward management. Mr. McEntire ob~ected stating that the question was calling for a conclusion. Chairman Betts asked Ms. Dockery what her definition of offensive language was; did she consider it vulgar? Ms. Dockery said no. ~ Commissioner Skelton asked Ms. Dockery if there was any remark or question concerning the validity of the method by which the plan would be administered. Ms. Dockery replied that she and Mr. Moody were discussing her personal opinion of the plan and the merit system. Mr. Williams called Arthur Kutcher as his second witness. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Kutcher if John Moody ever talked to him about him and what his feelings were. Mr. Kutcher stated that John Moody had talked to him about Mr. Williams. He testified that he did not know what his feelings were. He stated that he just knew what the last comment was that Mr. Moody made to him about Mr. Williams. He testified that Mr. Moody asked him how he could put up with Kent, that if Kent worked for him he would run him off. Mr. Kutcher testified that he had not heard or read of a City Manager memo dated February 13. He testified CSC Hearing ' " Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 5 `L that he was aware of the accident Mr. Williams had with the mower and that he had seen similiar accidents before in the City. He stated that he did not know if other employees were pu~ished or not for similiar accidents. Mr. McEntire stated that in connection with damaging personal property in the City an employee may or may not have been punished in the past and that Mr. Kutcher had no personal knowledge of it. Mr. Kutcher said that was what he was saying. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Kutcher if he was not familiar with the fact that after 5:00 P.M. no one is to be in the administrative, locked-up area of City Hall. Mr. Kutcher replied that he knew no one was suppose to be in the locked up area after hours but that he was not aware of the memo. He stated that the general knowledge was that after 5:00 P.M. no one is to be in City Hall. Mr. McEntire stated then that it could have come about by virtue of a memo that Mr. Kutcher heard about but did not read. Commissioner Szol asked when the statement was made by Mr. Moody and in what context the statement was made in. He asked if something happened to cause Mr. Moody to make the statement. Mr. Kutcher stated that Mr. Moody made the statement prior to Kent's dismissal, probably a week or two before. He stated that the remark was made more or less out of the blue. He stated that they were discussing several things at the time. He stated that Kent's name was mentioned in the general conversation. Mr. Williams stated that the letter dated August 21 stated that the 7800 block of Glenview was not in North Richland Hills. He stated that he knew for a fact that he had paved Glenview many times and that if it was not in North Richland Hills then why did the City take care of the street. Mr. Williams stated that when he hit the gas meter- he heard the Director of Public Works call in on the radio and ask if it was in the city limits. ~ CSC Hearing - ~ Case No. CS-$1-1 September 15, 1981 Page 6 Mr. McEntire stated that this was not an important issue and that "it is a matter of record that all of Glenview Street is in Richland Hills and evidently some of it wili be in North Richland Hills." He stated as to why the City does work on Glenview, there is some type of city agreement made between the two cities. He state~ the main thing is that Kent ran over some property he should not have run over. The Chairman asked the other Commissioners if they felt the location of the City limit line was an issue and whether it would necessitate someone being fi~ed or suspended. All of the Commissioners agreed that it was not an issue. Mr. Williams called Cliff Porch as his third witness. Mr. Williams questioned Mr. Porch about the incident with the gas meter and the City Manager memo. Mr. Porch testified that he was aware of Mr. Williams' accident and that he knew the grass was above the meter. He stated that he had seen accidents such as Mr. Williams before and that he could see how the meter could be backed into. Mr. Porch stated that "it depended on whose fault it was--whether it was their fault, a mechanical failure, things like that" as to whether the accidents went by without punishment. Mr. Porch testified that Mr. Madera had told them that they were not to come into City Hall without permission during working hours. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Porch that if as an employee of North Richland Hills he knew that he was not suppose to be in the locked up area of City Hall and that he would not be surprised to hear that there was a rule which states employees are not to come into the locked up area of City Hall after closing. Mr. Porch stated that he would not be surprised to hear that. Mr. Williams asked the City Attorney if he had ever seen an employee go back to the break room in the locked up area during City Council meetings. Mr. McEntire stated that he could honestly say he had seen the City Manager, the City Secretary, and Stan Gertz with the City Manager go back there. ~ . CSC Hearing Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 7 ~ Mr. Williams called Jimmy Cates as his fourth witness. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Cates if he was aware that he had hit the gas meter on Glenview, if he knew where the meter was located, had he ever mowed that area before and had he been punished for it. He asked if he knew of other accidents similiar to his. Mr. Cates testified that he was aware that Kent had hit the meter and that he knew the location of the meter. He stated that he had mowed that area before and had not been punished for it. He stated that he knew of other accidents similiar to Kent's and could not remember the employee being punished. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Cates if Jerry Thompson had talked to him about pressure being put on him about himself. Mr. McEntire stated that Mr. Williams was trying to prove his point on hearsay. The Chairman stated that the Commission could only take first hand information and that they would not ~ take the intermediate part as evidence. Mr. Williams questioned Mr. Cates about the City Manager memo. Mr. Cates said that when Pete Pistoli worked for the city it was common knowledge that he had told everyone if they wanted to come to City Hall they were to ask permission, but he had not heard of a memo since the new administration that stated employees were to stay out of City Hall. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Cates if he did not understand that he was not suppose to come into the locked up area of City Hall after it closes and that it would be no surprise that he was not to come back into the administrative offices after they had closed. Mr. Cates stated he knew that he was not suppose to be in City Hall after 5:00 and that he had known this for as long as he had worked for the City. Mr. Williams called Jerry Thompson as his fifth witness. CSC Hearing ' ~ Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 8 Mr. Williams handed Chairman Betts a copy of the accident report and stated that Mr. Thompson had told him orally that he was going to recommend three days off. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Thompson if it was the same accident report. Mr. Thompson testified that it was the report except for the last paragraph where the suspension was added in. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Thompson why he waited until August 13 to write the report. Mr. Thompson stated that he waited because of the decision he had to make. He said it was a border line case as to whether Kent would get three days suspension or if he would have to pay for it. The Chairman asked why Mr. Williams' copy of the report was different from the one the Co~nissioners received. Mr. Thompson explained that it was the same report. He explained that he told Kent at the Shop and gave him a copy of the report, then came to City Hall and requested three days suspension and had it typed in and then went back and told Kent he had requested the suspensio~. He stated that the rules and regulations require that each man be suspended for an accident and that the City has always followed this procedure if it 3s the employee's fault. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Thompson what kind of employee he was. He asked if he considered him a trouble maker. Mr. Thompson stated that he was a little bit better than average and that he was not a trouble maker. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Thompson if anyone had ever put pressure on him about himself. Mr. Thompson testified that he had not had pressure from anyone about Mr. Williams. Kent Williams stated that ~he document that lists the specific reasons he was fired lists four reasons, but that he was only told three reasons when he was terminated. He stated he was told he was being terminated because of the gas meter incident, the incident with the mosquito sprayer, and insubordination for coming ' ' CSC Hearing Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 9 ~ into the ~dministrative offices through the Police Department. Mr. Thompson stated that he was aware of those three reasons and that he had talked to Mr. Williams about each of them when they were called to his attention. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Thompson if he had the power to fire people in his department. Mr. Thompson stated that he was not a department head and that he could only write recommendations which the department head usually backs up. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Thompson if after his investigation in respect to the grass incident, did he feel that the punishment should be three days suspension. Mr. Thompson replied yes. Mr. McEntire asked if some of the other incidents listed were not directly related to Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson replied yes. Mr. Williams stated that if Mr. Thompson was going to recommend three days off, then why was it not in the first accident xeport. He stated that it was a long time from the 13th of August to when it happened in June. Mr. Thompson said the reason he waited so long was because he was trying to be fair. He said he also had to wait on the bills to come in so he could properly fill out the accident report. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Thompson if he would say that the accident was negligent. Mr. Thompson said yes. He stated that if an operator of any piece of equipment is in an area that he is unfamiliar with, he should get off the equipment and check the area in case there are any holes or objects that could be run over. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Thompson if he was aware that Glenview Drive was not in North Richl~.nd Hills. ~ ~ ~ CSC Hearing Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 10 Mr. Thompson testified that he was not aware where Mr. Williams was at. He stated that when Mr. Williams took over the grass mower he had told him to use his own ~udgment and cut what grass he felt took priority. He stated that he had told Mr. Williams that as long as he had worked for the City he should know the right- of-ways and city property. Mr. Williams stated that it was a fact that where he was mowing, 7825 Glenview, is listed as the address of an ex-North Richland Hills mayor. RECESS The Chairman called a recess at 8:50 P.M. BACK TO ORDER The Chairman called the hearing back to order at 9:00 P.M. with the same members present. Mr. Williams stated he would like to get the fact straight that where he was mowing was in the North Richland Hills city limit. He stated that the address listed in the phone book for John Hunter is a North Richland Hills address. Mr. Thompson stated that Glenview Street is not the 8ity's property. He said the right of way on both sides of the street belongs to another city. He explained that the address is a North Richland Hills address but there are hundreds of other addresses in North Richland Hills where the street and right-of-way belong to another city. He testified that North Richland Hills patches Glenview if there is a water break because the city has water service going across the street. He stated that it is the responsibility of North Richland Hills to take care of its patchwork. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Thompson if he had ever been pressured by the City Manager about him. Mr. Thompson testified that he had not been pressured. He stated his boss had asked him some questions about Mr. Williams, but he had talked to Mr. Williams about the questions he was asked. Mr. Thompson testified that he had discussed Mr. Williams with a lot of people about various things. Mr. Williams asked if the new mower had already been in one accident. Mr. Thompson stated that it had not been in an accident. CSC Hearing ~ ~ Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 11 ~ Mr. Williams asked if there had been damage to any equipment that Mr. Thompson knew of since he had come to work for the city and if he had recommended three days suspension. Mr. Thompson stated there had been accidents and sometimes the employee would get off and sometimes he would not. Mr. McEntire asked in regards to the mowing incident how long did it take to get information in concerning the materials, equipment, and labor cost. Mr. Thompson said that it did not take long to figure up the material and labor time wise, but it took several days to receive the statements for the repair work. Mr. Thompson testified that it was after he received the statements that he recommended the suspension. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Thompson if he had given any indication to him that he had done anything wrong in connection with 11.02i. Mr. Thompson testified that when Mr. Williams came in the next morning after the incident, Mr. Williams told him that the City Manager had followed him back to the shop. Mr. Thompson stated that he was not aware of the full details at that time and was not aware that Mr. Williams had done anything wrong until Mr. Forester asked him about it when he came to the City Hall. He testified that Mr. Williams said the City Manager followed him back to the shop but Mr. Forester told him that the City Manager had seen Mr. Williams twice. Mr. Thompson stated that he called Mr. Williams into his office and discussed what Mr. Forester had told him. He said he asked him why the City Manager had seen him twice. He stated that Mr. Williams told him the first time the City Manager saw him leave the shop and the second time was when he came back a few minutes later to get a water can. Mr. Williams called John Moody as his sixth witness. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Moody about the conversation he had had with Kathy Dockery and himself. Mr. Moody testified that there were several people involved. He stated that Ka.thy Dockery and he were CSC Hearing ' ' Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 12 ~ talking originally. He stated that there were several other employees involved. He stated that they were discussing what could take place with the pay plan. He said that he and Kathy Dockery were discussing the merit system and if it would be treated fairly. He said the rest of the conversation led up to other people walking up and leaving. He said Mr. Williams walked up and made a statement. He said "my presumption from Kent~s conversation was the employees were going to get screwed one way or the other." Chairman Betts asked if Mr. Williams actually said that and Mr. Moody said yes. Mr. Williams denied that he made the statement. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Moody if he made any derogatory remarks towards management. Mr. Moody stated that he did not pay that much attention. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Moody if he had ma.de the statement to a city employee that "if I worked for you, you would have fired me a long time ago." Mr. Moody stated that he had probably made that state- ment to a lot of people. He testified that he made the statement because of the attitude Mr. Williams had. He stated that he felt Mr. Williams' statement would have a definite effect on the other employees' attitudes. He stated that when he wrote the report on Mr. Williams he was not aware that he was having any problems, but felt that he should not have been making those type of remarks in front of the employees at the shop at a time when the employees had worked so hard to get support for the charter changes. Mr. Moody testified that no names were called in the conversation. :Chairman Betts asked Mr. Moody if he was testifying to the fact that he heard no derogatory remarks towards management. Mr. Moody stated that he did not recall. Commissioner Skelton stated in regards to the question of management does it really make any difference. He said if a city employee ma.kes the statement that Mr. Moody said Mr. Williams made, the implication is that it will be coming from management. He stated that he did not know of any other assumption that could be ` ma.de . CSC Hearing ~ ~ Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 13 L Commissioner Szol asked if the conversation was a free- willing conversation. He asked Mr. Moody if in a free- willing conversation, would he object to opposition. Mr. Moody stated that it was a free-willing conversation. He stated that he really did not know how the conversation got started. He said that people were coming to him with their questions about the pay plan since he had been on the Employee Committee for the Charter. He stated they were cutting the system down before it was being given a chance to work. Mr. Williams called Cecil Forester as his next witness. Mr. Williams questioned Mr. Forester about 17.02e, why he had not been warned that he was doing something wrong and the reason for his suspension. Mr. Forester testified that John Moody had informed him of the offensive language incident on the 12th of August and he had asked him to write a report on it upon being told. He stated that he did not think it was his place to tell Mr. Williams what was right or wrong. He testified that all incidents or reports that he received and that were outlined in the memo came to him within a reasonably short period of time. He stated that he felt that he had no alternative but to take action based on Mr. Williams' performance. He stated that the reason for the time span between the incident and the disciplinary action was that after the accident happened it took about a week to fix the gas leak, another few days to receive all the bills and Mr. Thompson testified to the fact that it sat in his basket for a few days while he weighed heavily the disciplinary action to take. Mr. Forester testified that he did take Mr. Williams' explanation into consideration, but when weighed against the information that the City Manager had, he doubted if it was factual. Mr. Forester testified that the suspension was Mr. Thomspon's decision and that he did not have to clear his decision with him. He stated that the reason for the suspension was not discussed. He testified that Mr. Thompson can recommend that employees be suspended either for an indefinite or definite period of time, and that he usually does so with his concurrence, Mr. Forester testified that he had not been given a direct order to terminate Mr. Williams and that he had not had pressure from anyone. CSC Hearing ' Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 14 When Mr. Williams asked if he had discussed him with ~ the City Manager. Mr. Forester testified that he discusses all of his employees at one time or another with the City Manager. Mr. Forester testified that the City Manager did express a concerri that the mosquito sprayer may not have been used as it should have been. Mr. Williams asked if the gas meter violation was based on hitting the gas meter itself or for not being at the proper work station. Mr. Forester testified that it was really two separate incidents although they were related. He stated that the gas meter was approximately 15 feet on private property and there was no reason for Mr. Williams to be 15 feet on private property even if he had been on the correct right-of-way. Mr. Forester stated that Mr. Thompson had told him that he did not give strict orders on where the employee was to mow. Mr. Forester stated that he was not aware that other employees had mo~ed on Glenview until he heard the testimony. He stated that the entire right-of-way of Glenview is not in the North Richland Hills city limits. Mr. Williams stated that his last supervisor had told him that Glenview was North Richland Hills' right-of- L way. Mr. McEntire questioned Mr. Forester about the reports he received regarding the spraying and City Hall incidents. Mr. Forester testified that he received from the City Manager a verbal report and later a written report, and also a report from Mr. McKinney who was in City Hall when the City Hall incident occurred. Commissioner Skelton asked what the reason was Mr. Williams gave for riding around when he was suppose to be spraying. Mr. Forester said the reason given to him by Mr. Thompson was that the sprayer was not working properly. Commissioner Skelton asked if it implied that Mr. Williams did not know that the sprayer was not working properly and was driving around when he did not know that it was not spraying. Mr. Forester said that he did not know why. The Chairman asked what type of spray, fog or mist, did the sprayer put out. ~ CSC Hearing ' ~ Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 15 ~ Mr. Forester stated that it was a mist. Commissioner Skelton asked if the driver of the vehicle would know if it was operating properly. Mr. Forester said that the driver would kndw if it was operating. He stated that the mist can be seen and the driver of the sprayer can hear the motor running. Mr. Williams concluded. Mr. McEntire called Charles W. Williams, City Manager, as his first witness. Mr. McEntire asked Charles Williams to tell the Commission what he observed on June 29, 1981. The City Manager testified that at approximately 1:50 P.M. he observed Mr. Williams east bound on Maplewood in a gren pickup with a mosquito sprayer on the rear of the vehicle. He stated that Mr. Williams went by him at a very slow speed. He stated that he turned around because the City had received numerous complaints in reference to mosquitoes. He stated that Mr. Williams was suppose to be spraying for mosquitoes and the machine was not operating. He stated that he followed L Mr. Williams for approximately 30 minutes and during that time the machine was not working. He testified that Mr. Williams was ~ust looking around and driving. The City Manager said that later that evening he was coming out of City Hall from a meeting. He stated that there was a disturbance outside and an officer went to quell the disturbance which ended up under- neath Loop 820 at Holiday Lane. He said the officer did not have a back up so he went in that direction to back him up and saw Mr. Williams going by again on Maplewood east bound. He stated that he was at the scene with the officer two to three minutes and Mr. Williams drove slowly through the area of the disturbance south bound. He stated that the mosquito sprayer still was not working. He stated that after the officer had the sub~ect in custody and had gone back to the police station, he immediately went to the shop on Rufe Snow. He testified that upon arrival there, the pickup that he had seen Mr. Williams driving was parked at the drive and the gate was half open. He said he went in and asked Mr. Williams what his job function for that day was. He said he told Mr. Williams that he had seen him on two occasions and wanted to know what he had been doing that day. He stated that Mr. Williams told him that he had been spraying for mosquitoes. The City Manager said that he then advised Mr. Williams that he had seen him on two different occasions and had CSC Hearing Case No. CS-81-1 ' ' September 15, 1981 Page 16 yet to see the machine running. He stated that Mr. Williams looked at him funny and said to the example "I was there and I really don't have to answer your questions." The City Manager said he advised him that he was on the border of insubordination and told him he had better be doing what he was suppose to be doing and that his supervisor would be advised of this. The City Manager stated that he advised his supervisor, Mr. Forester, of the incident and asked for a report on it. Mr. McEntire asked if on that occasion if Mr. Williams made an excuse as to why the machine was not operating. The City Manager said he did not. He said the reason Mr. Williams said he was at the Public Works Shop was to pick up some water. Mr. McEntire asked the City Manager to read the memo regarding employees being in City Hall and entered it as Exhibit 4~2. Mr. McEntire questioned the City Manager about the memo. The City Manager testified that he was not present when Kent was found in City Hall. He testiified that the reasoning behind the memo was that the locks to City Hall had been changed and each key has to be signed for. L He stated that there ~s not the proper facilities in City Hall to lock the records as they should be and the computer could be vulnerable to vandalism. Mr. Williams stated that the City Manager saw him at 1:50 P.M. and that they don't start spraying for mosquitoes until the late afternoon. He stated that he could not remember what he was doing but he could assure the Commission that he was not ~ust driving around. Mr. Williams asked the City Manager if he ever mentioned to Jerry Thompson that the City would run a little bit better if Mr. Williams was not working here. Charles Williams stated that he did not know if he said that. He stated that he had made remarks about several employees at one time or another to their supervisors if they were not performing satisfactorily. Commissioner Szol asked Charles Williams to repeat the insubordination remark that Kent Williams made.- The City Manager said that it was so long ago that he could not recall the exact words. He said that he asked Kent Williams what he was doing that evening, and he said he was sprayin~. The City Manager said he then told him he had seen him twice that day and the sprayer was not going either time. The City Manager said that CSC Hearing ~ ~ Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 17 Mr. Williams just stared at him and said I have been doing my job. The City Manager said he then advised him that with his attitude he had better be doing his ~ob because he was on the verge of insubordination for the way he was acting. Kent Williams stated that he disagreed with Charles Williams. Mr. McEntire called Jeanette Moore, City Secretary, as his second witness. Mr. McEntire asked if she remembered the memo from Charles Williams dealing with unauthorized personnel staying out of City Hall after 5:00 P.M. and if she recalled preparing and distributing the memo. Ms. Moore stated she did. Mr. McEntire asked if on the night that the polls closed at City Hall in connection with the Charter election held in August, did she discover any city employee who was not authorized to be in the locked up area. M~. Moore stated that she saw Kent Williams some- time around 7:15 or 7:30 P.M. alone in City Hall. Mr. Williams asked why the sanctity of the election process would be jeopordized. Ms. Moore stated that the doors are locked at 7:00 and no one else is suppose to come in. She said only the ~udges, the City Manager, herself, and a few members of the City Council were at City Hall that night. Mr. McEntire called Ron McKinney as his next witness. Mr. McEntire stated that until recently Mr. McKinney was in the Police Department, but is now the Civil Service Secretary. He asked if on the day of the Charter election if it came to his attention that Mr. Kent Williams was in an unauthorized section of City Hall after 5:00 P.M. Mr. McKinney testified that the City Secretary advised him that Mr. Williams was in the City Hall. He stated that he was at City Hall that night as a security measur~ to maintain the integrity of the election, and to supervise the closing of the polls. He testified that when he went into the area where the administrative offices are, he observed Mr. Williams standing by the doorway. He testified that the Mayor had instructed him to remove Mr. Williams. He stated that Mr. Williams - • CSC Hearing Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 18 offered the explanation that he wanted to know what the results of the election were. He stated that he advised Mr. Williams that the polls were being tabulated and the results of the election would be given to the Police Dispatcher. Mr. McKinney testified that he did check later to find out how Mr. Williams had gotten into the unauthorized area. He stated that he checked with the Chief of Central Services, Randy Shiflet, who checked with the dispatcher on duty that night. Mr. McKinney said that Mr. Shiflet had determined in talking with the dispatcher that Mr. Williams came to the window from the outside into the foyer where the dispatcher operates and wanted to get into the police area. He stated Mr. Williams showed the dispatcher his City ID and she activated the electric door so he could come into the Police Department. He said then that the only way to come into the administrative area is through the wooden door that separates City Hall from the Police Department. Mr. Williams asked Mr. McKinney how he escorted him out of City Hall. Mr. McKinney stated that he confronted Mr. Williams by the passageway to the administrative offices, escorted him back into the Police Department, and observed him go back through the door to the outside before he himself returned to City Hall. RECESS The Chairman called a recess at 10:20 BACK TO ORDER The Chairman called the hearing back to order at 10:27 P.M. with the same members present. Kent Williams stated he would give his view of each of the violations. Mr. Williams said in connection with the lst violation, 1102e, he said nothing derogatory toward management and does not think he said anything that would create morale problems or hinder the effec::~_t'e performance of municipal government. Mr. Williams said in connection with 1].02f, that he had "never seen such a City Manager memo, ever". He stated that many times after a City Council meeting or during the meeting he had come into the City Hall and gone back to the break room. He said he did not know how he could be insubordinate to a memo he had never seen. Mr. Williams said in connection with 1102h, that he did not feel it was negligence in the care of handling city property or equipment. He stated that he simply L backed into a meter that he could not see in high grass. . , CSC Hearing Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 19 ` He stated this had been done many times before by others and in many cases no punishment was given. He stated that "we have always done work at the location where it says that I was not at my proper work station." Mr. Williams said in connection with 1~02i, he disagreed totally because he was not spraying at 1:50 in the afternoon. He said he did not know where the information was gotten and that he was sure he was doing some type of work. He stated that he drove down Maplewood east bound, turned around and returned to the shop on Rufe Snow to get a towel and fill the water ~ug. He stated that because he was never thoroughly questioned about the incident he never told anyone what really happened. Mr. Williams stated that he thought he had proven that he had not made any derogatory remarks towards management, that he had never seen a memo in connection with the insubordination, that he was never warned by his supervisor to stay out of City Hall, and that he was never told not to go into City Hall that night or warned afterwards. He stated that in regards to the negligent violation it was an everyday occurrence. He stated that if the Commission would look at his past evaluations, his promotion, and his commendation they would see proof that he was a good employee and that these violations were not enough to terminate him. The Commissioners asked Mr. Williams if the reason he gave Mr. McKinney for being in City Hall was true and how he got into City Hall. Mr. Williams said the reason was true and that he came in the way Mr. McKinney said. Chairman Betts told Mr. Williams that he had at no time denied that he was driving around not doing anything. Mr. Williams stated that he started out to spray the Smithfield area. He said he drove down Maplewood, had not yet sprayed, then turned back around to go get water and a towel. Commissioner Skelton stated that if all the employees questioned were aware that they were not suppose to be in City Hall after closing then why did Mr. Williams assume otherwise just because a change had never been issued. Mr. Williams stated that under the last management they were told they were to get permission to come to City Hall. He stated that they did not necessarily CSC Hearing - - Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 20 need to get permission to go to City Council meetings. He stated that the city was "~ust under new management and things were not the same." Commissioner Skelton questioned the validity of Mr. Williams excuse and asked if it was not customary ~ to walk off areas before they were mowed. Mr. Williams stated that they usually have so much to mow they can't explore every foot of ground to be mowed. Mr. McEntire gave his closing summation. He stated that the Civil Service Co~nission makes an inquiry as to whether or not there is evidence to support disciplinary action taken on an.employee. He stated he was submitting to the Cotrm~ission that in connection with the testimony heard, there is some evidence to support the department's decision. He stated that no matter which statement Mr. Williams made, either statement is knocking management. He stated the charge with respect to being in the unauthorized area has been substantiated. Mr. McEntire stated that the investigation made by Mr. Williams' supervisor indicated that the mowing incident was negligence since three days suspension had been recommended. He stated the spraying incident is also supportive by the evidence presented. ~ DELIBERATION The Commissioners closed the hearing for deliberation at 10:50 P.M. in closed quarters. BACK TO ORDER The Chairman called the hearing back to order at 11:30 P.M. and announced the decision. DECISION "In summary the Commission agrees with the action taken by the Department Head that the greatest emphasis being placed on 11.02f. 11.02e An open discussion and an opinion does not constitute dismissal, however, it should be note~ that the attitude of the individual appeared to be less than desirable for a dedicated employee. 11.02f Being in an unauthorized area at a critical time, having been given sufficient prior notice constitutes insubordination. The evidence was quite clear that other employees including all witnesses had knowledge of the off limit status of this area. , _ CSC Hearing Case No. CS-81-1 September 15, 1981 Page 21 11.02h While the Couunission agrees that there.is a ma.rgin of area, meter covered with grass, the fact remains $637.12 damage i~ done to city property. Negligence was shown only that the employee did not properly police area prior to cutting. 11.02i After weighing the evidence presented by the witnesses the Commission feels that the duties and responsibilities of mosquito spraying were not being properly executed, resulting in loss of man hours. ROLL CALL The Chairman called for a roll call with the following vote recorded: Commissioner Skelton, yea Co~issioner Szol yea Chairman Betts yea Chairman Betts informed Mr. Williams he would be given notice of the decision tonight and that he could appeal to a district court where the only evidence that would be presented would be the tapes from this hearing. ADJOURNMENT The meeting ad~ourned at 11:40 P.M. y ~ E 5 OL, VICE CHAI r Ron McK nney, Civi Service Secretary